3 ms·

The question is if twitter is a private square or a public one.

toast0 6y ago
Yes, absolutely. Section 230 doesn't really take a position on that. The problem is, if Twitter is a private square; are there any public squares (online); and if we have no public squares, what good are our rights in the public square. On the other hand, if Twitter is a public square, that places a burden on a private company that they don't necessarily want. Although if you look at quotes from 2013, they were saying things like "We're the free speech wing of the free speech party." [1] I don't think we can necessarily hold a company to the words of a seven year old interview of a former CEO; but it's certainly no longer holding free speech as important above moderation of reprehensible speech. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/21/174858681/on-its-7th-birthday-is-twitter-still-the-free-speech-party https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/21/17...
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  There is legal precedent for a company town jailing a Jehovah's Witness who was preaching on their sidewalk, the company was later still found guilty of violating the preacher's free speech, even though this was their sidewalk.
scsilver 6y ago
No the question is if twitter had a monopoly on private squared that almost anyone can access and peek into. They don't and there are dozens of alternatives. Its not a publicly owned square, that is obvious. It may be a publicly accessible square. Ultimately its right to kick people out for lighting dumpster fires, still seems perfectly reasonable if it were a private square that is pubolically accessible. That said, I could see civil suits could argue responsibility for keeping that square safe for guests(ie allowing ice to build up on the private but accessible square and someone slips and falls) But if twitter doesnt want someone there in its square, it should be free to kick them out if they arent a protected class, just like every private but publicly accessible business we patron.

Yes, absolutely. Section 230 doesn't really take a position on that. The problem is, if Twitter is a private square; are there any public squares (online); and if we have no public squares, what good are our rights in the public square. On the other hand, if Twitter is a public square, that places a burden on a private company that they don't necessarily want. Although if you look at quotes from 2013, they were saying things like "We're the free speech wing of the free speech party." [1] I don't think we can necessarily hold a company to the words of a seven year old interview of a former CEO; but it's certainly no longer holding free speech as important above moderation of reprehensible speech. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/21/174858681/on-its-7th-birthday-is-twitter-still-the-free-speech-party https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/21/17...

BlueTemplar 6y ago
There is legal precedent for a company town jailing a Jehovah's Witness who was preaching on their sidewalk, the company was later still found guilty of violating the preacher's free speech, even though this was their sidewalk.

scsilver 6y ago

No the question is if twitter had a monopoly on private squared that almost anyone can access and peek into. They don't and there are dozens of alternatives. Its not a publicly owned square, that is obvious. It may be a publicly accessible square. Ultimately its right to kick people out for lighting dumpster fires, still seems perfectly reasonable if it were a private square that is pubolically accessible. That said, I could see civil suits could argue responsibility for keeping that square safe for guests(ie allowing ice to build up on the private but accessible square and someone slips and falls) But if twitter doesnt want someone there in its square, it should be free to kick them out if they arent a protected class, just like every private but publicly accessible business we patron.